Untitled case

The case, Signal, LLP v. Renesas Electronics Corporation, Case No. 2:26-cv-00093, is a patent infringement lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Texas on February 4, 2026. The plaintiff, Signal, LLP, is a Nevada-based entity that appears to be a Patent Assertion Entity (PAE) or Non-Practicing Entity (NPE). The patents asserted in this case, including US Patent 9092352, were assigned to Signal, LLP on September 29, 2025, from Rambus, Inc., who is identified as Signal's predecessor-in-interest. The defendant, Renesas Electronics Corporation, is a major Japanese semiconductor manufacturer specializing in microcontrollers and analog chips for the automotive, industrial, and IoT sectors.

The core of the dispute revolves around Renesas' semiconductor products, specifically its microcontrollers and System-on-Chips (SoCs) that support DDR memory standards, which are alleged to infringe five U.S. patents related to on-die termination and memory controller technologies. US Patent 9092352, titled "Memory system with on-die termination," generally describes methods and systems for controlling on-die termination in memory devices, crucial for signal integrity in high-speed memory interfaces. This technology is fundamental to performance in modern computing, automotive, and embedded systems.

The case is being heard in the Eastern District of Texas, a venue historically favored by patent plaintiffs due to its plaintiff-friendly procedural rules and accelerated trial schedules. Notably, the plaintiff alleges proper venue because Renesas is a foreign corporation, allowing suit in any judicial district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction, a strategy that has emerged to navigate post-TC Heartland venue restrictions. The litigation is notable for involving an NPE asserting patents acquired from an established technology company (Rambus) against a major semiconductor operating company. The complaint also highlights a prior patent license agreement between Rambus and Renesas that expired in March 2020, followed by a notice of infringement in June 2021, suggesting that allegations of willful infringement may be central to the case.

The patent infringement lawsuit, Signal, LLP v. Renesas Electronics Corporation, Case No. 2:26-cv-00093, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on February 4, 2026, concerning US Patent 9092352.

As of May 28, 2026, the case is in its very early stages, with primarily initial filings having occurred. Key developments include:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • Complaint Filed (2026-02-04): Plaintiff Signal, LLP initiated the lawsuit by filing a complaint against defendant Renesas Electronics Corporation, alleging infringement of US Patent 9092352.
  • Parties and Counsel: Signal, LLP is represented by attorneys Patrick Joseph Conroy, David Thomas DeZern, and Jonathan Hart Rastegar of Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC, as well as Colin Stalter of Gerasimow Law.

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance:
  Due to the recent filing date of February 4, 2026, no substantive pre-trial motions such as motions to dismiss, transfer, stay pending IPR, or summary judgment have been publicly recorded or reached a determinative stage.

• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:
  The case has not yet reached the claim construction (Markman) stage.

• Discovery Milestones:
  No significant discovery milestones have been reported given the early posture of the case.

• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:
  The case has not proceeded to trial, nor have any verdicts or post-trial motions occurred.

• Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:
  The case remains active and is in its initial litigation phase, with no final disposition, settlement, dismissal, judgment, or appeal recorded.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:
  A search for IPR or PGR proceedings related to US Patent 9092352 at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) does not show any filed petitions as of the current date. Inter Partes Review (IPR) and Post-Grant Review (PGR) are administrative proceedings designed to challenge the validity of an issued patent at the USPTO. Given the recent filing of the district court case, it is possible that an IPR or PGR petition could be filed in the future, as these proceedings can run parallel to district court litigation, though recent USPTO policies may impact the likelihood of institution if parallel litigation is likely to reach a validity decision first.

The plaintiff in the patent infringement case 2:26-cv-00093, Signal, LLP, is represented by attorneys from Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC and The Law Offices of David A. Gerasimow, P.C..

The counsel of record for the plaintiff are:

• Patrick Joseph Conroy

  • Role: Likely lead counsel or a key attorney.
  • Firm: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC
  • Office Location: Specific office location for Patrick Joseph Conroy within Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC needs to be further investigated, but the firm has an office in Dallas, which is where David Thomas DeZern and Jonathan Hart Rastegar are listed.
  • Relevant Experience: Further research is needed to detail his specific patent litigation experience.

• David Thomas DeZern

  • Role: Attorney.
  • Firm: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC
  • Office Location: Dallas, Texas.
  • Relevant Experience: Further research is needed to detail his specific patent litigation experience.

• Colin Stalter

  • Role: Attorney.
  • Firm: Gerasimow Law (likely "THE LAW OFFICES OF DAVID A. GERASIMOW, P.C.").
  • Office Location: Further research is needed to determine the specific office location for Gerasimow Law.
  • Relevant Experience: Further research is needed to detail his specific patent litigation experience.

• Jonathan Hart Rastegar

  • Role: Attorney.
  • Firm: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC
  • Office Location: Dallas, Texas.
  • Relevant Experience: Further research is needed to detail his specific patent litigation experience.

Information regarding specific roles (e.g., lead counsel, local counsel), precise office locations for all attorneys, and detailed patent litigation experience for each individual attorney requires further targeted web searches. The provided snippets clearly identify the firms and the attorneys who have appeared.

This analysis identifies the counsel of record representing the defendant(s) in Signal, LLP v. Renesas Electronics Corporation, Case No. 2:26-cv-00093, in the Texas Eastern District Court. The sole defendant identified in the case is Renesas Electronics Corporation.

As of the current date, the following attorneys appear to be representing the defendant, Renesas Electronics Corporation:

• Patrick Joseph Conroy (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC, Fort Worth, Texas
  • Note: Mr. Conroy is listed in docket entries related to the defendant's request for an extension of time to answer the complaint. His firm, Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC, is also listed generally as "Plaintiff's Counsel" on some analysis sites, but the specific docket entries clarify his involvement in filings related to the defendant's response. He has experience in patent litigation.

• David Thomas DeZern (Counsel)

  • Firm: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC, Dallas, Texas
  • Note: Mr. DeZern is listed alongside other attorneys from Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC in docket records for the case.

• Jonathan Hart Rastegar (Counsel)

  • Firm: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC, Dallas, Texas
  • Note: Mr. Rastegar is also listed with Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC in connection with this case.

• Colin Stalter (Counsel)

  • Firm: Gerasimow Law
  • Note: Mr. Stalter is listed in connection with this case, with Gerasimow Law.

It is important to note that while some general case overview sites may list Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC and THE LAW OFFICES OF DAVID A. GERASIMOW, P.C. as "Plaintiff's Counsel", the specific docket entries for case 2:26-cv-00093, such as the "UNOPPOSED MOTION for Extension of Time to File Defendant's Answer or Otherwise Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint by Signal, LLP.(Conroy, Patrick)" and the "Summons returned executed by Signal, LLP. Renesas Electronics Corporation served on 3/5/2026. (Conroy, Patrick)", indicate that Patrick Conroy of Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC is making filings on behalf of the plaintiff, Signal, LLP, in relation to the defendant's actions. This suggests the firm is handling aspects of the plaintiff's strategy concerning the defendant's response, rather than representing the defendant directly. However, the PacerMonitor entry also explicitly lists these attorneys under "Parties (2)" for the defendant, creating some ambiguity in the automated snippet. Given the more explicit context of filings relating to the defendant's answer filed by the plaintiff's counsel, it is more likely that these attorneys are involved in the overall case strategy for the plaintiff, including procedural aspects related to the defendant. Therefore, I will re-evaluate based on explicit appearances for the defendant.

Since the provided PacerMonitor snippet lists these attorneys with "Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC" and "Gerasimow Law" under the general parties section and indicates "Plaintiff's Unopposed Application for Extension of Time for Defendant to Answer or Otherwise Respond to Complaint filed by Signal, LLP.(Conroy, Patrick)", this initially created an ambiguity. However, further review of how counsel appearances are typically listed on docket sheets and the context of the motion for extension of time for defendant's answer by plaintiff Signal, LLP, clarifies that the listed attorneys associated with Signal, LLP are indeed plaintiff's counsel. The original search did not definitively identify separate counsel explicitly appearing for Renesas Electronics Corporation.

Therefore, based on the provided search results, dedicated counsel of record explicitly representing only the defendant, Renesas Electronics Corporation, has not been clearly identified and differentiated from the plaintiff's counsel. Without direct docket entries showing a Notice of Appearance specifically for Renesas Electronics Corporation by a distinct set of attorneys, it is not possible to confidently list them.

Thus, as of the current information, specific counsel exclusively representing the defendant, Renesas Electronics Corporation, has not been explicitly identified and differentiated from the plaintiff's counsel in the provided search results. It is possible that the defendant has not yet formally appeared through counsel in a public filing, or the information is not readily available in the snippets.Based on the available information from docket monitoring services, the defendant in this case, Renesas Electronics Corporation, has not yet had its specific counsel of record explicitly identified as distinct from the plaintiff's counsel in the provided search results.

While some listings mention attorneys from Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC and Gerasimow Law in connection with the case, a closer examination of the docket entries indicates these attorneys, specifically Patrick Joseph Conroy, are associated with filings made by the plaintiff, Signal, LLP. For example, the "UNOPPOSED MOTION for Extension of Time to File Defendant's Answer or Otherwise Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint by Signal, LLP.(Conroy, Patrick)" clearly shows a plaintiff's attorney making a filing regarding the defendant's response, not an attorney directly representing the defendant.

Therefore, as of May 28, 2026, the specific counsel of record exclusively representing the defendant, Renesas Electronics Corporation, has not been explicitly identified in the provided web search results. It is possible that defendant's counsel has not yet made a formal appearance that is publicly indexed, or the information is contained within PACER filings not fully detailed in the snippets.